get_element_body_mapping

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It details the exact return values (has_mapped_item, body_mapping_matrix, world_transform, determinant, is_mirrored) and even explains the determinant sign meaning. This gives the agent a clear model of what to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact yet rich, using two clear sentences to communicate purpose, return values, and a key use case. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return values and their semantic meaning (e.g., is_mirrored derived from determinant sign). It also provides practical context (baked rotations) and sufficient detail for a getter tool with only two identifier parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on model_id or global_id. While the schema property names and titles are self-explanatory, the description adds no parameter-level meaning, failing to compensate for the low coverage as required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a body mapping matrix for elements with IfcMappedItem geometry, using specific verbs ('Get') and resource nouns. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on mapped item transformations, with an explicit use case for detecting baked rotations in luminaire imports.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool via 'Essential for detecting baked rotations in luminaire imports,' but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_element_placement or get_representation. It provides situational context but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.